It is the Panzer Lehr definately, beautiful pictures, thank you.
Here I am with a reply on page 17 of this topic. Better late than never(?) It is a very good question and Iâm sure it has been asked countless times. The question appears simple and straightforward, but it is actually very open ended. The answer depends on what criteria you are judging the answer by. Different criterias generate different answers.
Standard criteria (SC); firepower, mobility, and armor: Panther, hands down.
However, if we start with the standard criteria then, introduce other critical factors using the hindsight advantage we are privileged to have, the answer changes. That said, it might be more relavent to rank the tanks (Hey, Iâm a poet!) in order of the significance of their effectiveness, in addtion to their technical merits. Technical merits aside, itâs who ultimately wins that really matters.
-
T-34; Technically, it met the SC better than any other tank when it was introduced in 1940, and held that position until 1943. Plus, it was very reliable. Its shortcomings were primarily tactical in nature. Mainly, the lack of radio communications, and poorly manned and led in comparison to its adversaries. However, in terms of shear numbers, it had no equal ie: it was a very good tank on its own SC merits, and there was always a lot more of them than anything they faced.
-
Panzer IV; even if it was only third or fourth best in terms of overall SC, it was close to the T-34, and superior to many of its comtemporaries, and very reliable while quite capable of defeating all its opponents. If Germany had concentrtated on, and improved on the Panzer IV, and its Jagdpanzer IV derivative, it would have had the numbers it needed, and coupled with superior crews and tactics the Panzers would have been much more formidable than they actually were, and they were very, very formidable.
-
M4 Sherman; The US began the war with the Sherman and stuck with it. It had the poorest SC, but it was reliable and there were a lot of them. Although it was poorly matched in tank vs. tank encounters, superior numbers and supporting tactics did much to address the imbalance. Besides, tank vs. tank engagements are only a portion of what tanks do. When not fighting other tanks, tanks are supporting infantry, the biggest factor in any battle, all things kept in perspective. I think most WW2 generals would probably agree, infantry can survive without tanks, but tanks cannot survive without infantry.
-
Panther; The best tank of WW2, as far as SC is concerned. Technically superior in that it incorporated all the lessons learned to that point, but they were sent into battle before enough of the bugs were worked out, and their reliability suffered accordingly. Regardless, there were too few of them, too late in the war to really affect the eventual outcome.
-
Tiger; With isolated exceptions, In tank vs. tank engagements it had no equal. But it was relatively immobile, and unreliable. And like the Panther, too few and too late. Plus, the designing, development, testing, and production interruptions attributed to the Tiger, and Panther only justified the war of attrition the Allies were waging against them. (See 1. & 3.) They might have had an overall 10:1 kill ratio, but they faced 20:1 odds.
- Panzer IV; even if it was only third or fourth best in terms of overall SC, it was close to the T-34, and superior to many of its comtemporaries, and very reliable while quite capable of defeating all its opponents. If Germany had concentrtated on, and improved on the Panzer IV, and its Jagdpanzer IV derivative, it would have had the numbers it needed, and coupled with superior crews and tactics the Panzers would have been much more formidable than they actually were, and they were very, very formidable
Hardly could Germany concentrate in the Panzer IV when the USSR continued to improve his armor day by day, The Panzer IV was okay for fighting the the Desert and Other western scenarios but for the East you need some with heavier punch and much better armored, for example the side armor of the Panzer IV could not be improved, the 30 mm figure was in 1944 the same as in 1939, not good, It could be penetrated by antitank rifles and rifle grenades.
The mobility was not so good, the leaf springs were simple and manteinance free but gaves a hard ride. Ground pressure was high, the track were widened in 1942 but still have the same ground pressure as the panther wich weights 19 tons more.
I agree on the rest of you post by the way.
My assumption about Panzer IV was: given the prowess of the German tank designers, if they had concentrated their efforts on the IV, they would have evolved it to a much higher degree, staying with and improving what was working well, and replacing what wasnât. Eventually, which would have been sooner rather than later, the IV would have had little resemblance to the original IV, and more in common with the V in terms of capability, given the necessity of responding to the T-34. Evolution is almost always more expedient than revolution. More results for less effort, sooner. And there is ample evidence that the Germans were very adept at modifying their equipment at something less than at depot level. Meanwhile, the production rate could have continued on at a much higher pace. You may not have the absolutely best tank one could have, but you have something that is very capable of meeting your immediate needs, and many more of them with little time lost compared to designing and introducing a totally new type. The majority of Panthers that went into battle could be classified as pre-production prototypes.
I should also add that the development of new armor piercing projectiles in 1944/45 was fast out-pacing the development of new, or more, armor. Cheap and plentiful man-portable weapons that were capable of defeating heavy tanks were becoming commonplace, and older light field artillery could launch new projectiles that were far more lethal than their bore size would suggest. So, when it came to armor, more was becoming less in terms of lost mobility (Tiger), in a hurry. This was borne out in post-war tank designs that put a premium on mobility and firepower, with armor last. Today, the armor technology has caught up somewhat with projectile technology, for now, but it took several decades for that to happen. (Isnât hindsight great?)
Footnote: Itâs been my observation that German designers more often than not opt for the latest and greatest, and generally over-design (my choice of words) in order to acheive it. We call it, âNew Paint Feverâ in the US. Yes, they come up with very impressive designs, and you get the newest thing out there that no one else has, but you also get a boatload of new problems no one else has, too. That may be an acceptable trade-off for consumer items in peacetime, but it can be a real loser for military items you are currently using to fight a war. 'Like we say, âThereâs no free lunchâ.
Iâd rather be in a Panther than a '34 during a battle⌠Rather be in a Tiger1 than a Panther! Anyway the T-34 was a war winning Tank the Panther was not. Logistically if you were a commander youâd want a division of T34s than Panthers simply because the T34 can go more places where a Panther canât. Sure in open space the Panther was great but rarely did optimal conditons prevail in wartime.
A Panther had a great gun and frontal armour, but what good was it confined to roads or worse, in the repair shop or abandoned?
Sickles,
You hit the nail on the head. The so-called fog of war, which is more the norm of unforeseen circumstances, dictates what works best, at a given time and place, which is seldom optimal for either side. The T-34 worked better at more times, and in more places, than any of the other tanks it faced. The law of averages usually determines the eventual outcome.
Perhaps, there should be (at least) four questions about WW2 tanks:
- Which had the best combination of firepower, mobility, & armor? Answer: Panther
- Which was the most reliable? Answer: Sherman
- Which had the best combination of firepower and armor? Answer: Tiger
- Which was the most dominant? Answer: T-34
Iâm sure there are several more pertinent questions I didnât ask.
I actually made a thread about the Panther check it out.
One question: I know a lot of Panzer Aces but they were all commaders of Tiger I.Does any of you guys know some Pantherâs aces ?
How 'bout SS-OberscharfĂźhrer Ernst Barkmann of 2nd SS-Panzer-Division âDas Reichâ?
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gen5.htm
Oberst Willy Langkeit from the Gross Deutschland is other.
Thanks guys.Btw I thought Langkeit was the commander of the Kumark Division?
You have to admit there arenât much of them compared to the Tiger I.
Major General Willy Langkeit was commander of the tank-regiment of the GroĂdeutschland-Division from march to october 1944, then he was transfered to the replacement brigade GroĂdeutschland, this unit was later reinforced and changed into the Kurland-Division.
BTW, there are some other Panther aces, one has just to dig a little deeper though, but yes, much more Tiger aces.
Absolutely Kame.
I love the Tiger 1. It was actually very mobile for such a large tank, (not much less than the Panther) I think it has more strengths than the Panther and less weaknessâs. Neither one was a war winner however.
Neither one was a war winner however.
And what about a battle winner ?
With enough Panther I think everybody could win abattle in ww2. :rolleyes:
Errr⌠thatâs kind of like saying you could do so with enough nuclear weapons, Challenger 2s or pointy sticks. They were impossible to produce in sufficient quantity, so the original point about them not being a war-winner stands.
The T-34 sounds like the âwar winnerâ you are talking about.
Precisely. One can also argue the Sherman qualifies too. Both were good enough and produced in sufficient quantity to change the course of campaigns and hence the war. The total combat power applied by the T-34s was substantially higher however.
Good discussion, but for all intents and purposes, I think this thread has played itself out.
Gee, I see I got promoted. Does this mean I donât have to pull KP, or latrine duty any more?
I donât like the look of the T-34 but I believe it to be the best tank of the selection in that it had a capable gun, heavy armor, a low profile and good cross country performance and was produced in huge numbers. The Panther was no doubt superior to the T-34 in certain respects but there were too few of them. I know somebody raised the issue that as Germany had limited manpower she could not have supplied tank crews had Panthers been produced in larger numbers, but it is my impression that even in the latter stages of the War; Germany was fielding all sorts of pre-Panther and pre-Tiger other design Tanks, which if I have got that right rather knocks the lack of tank crews argument on the head. The only thing one could say that was positive about the Sherman was that they were produced in large numbers. Furthermore the problems with the Sherman would have turned in to a major catastrophe if the Third Reich had been able to get its act together with the Me-262 and had been able to provide fighter cover to its tank units.
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer